remain loyal to the network. >> declaring victory. >> this was aig lossor them. the bottom line is they went all in and said that they -- their goal was to get over 50% and came up short. >> trump is calling it a big win for republicans but democrats are saying not so fast. there's one more leg in this neck in neck race. we begin now with our top story, ratings juggernaut bill o'reilly is out after a 20-year run at the network. after a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and bill o'reilly have agreed that bill o'reilly will not return to the fox news channel. they faced public pressure to cut ties after the disclosure of multiple settlements involving sexual harassment allegations. a cloud has hung over the network since the ouster of roger ales under similar circumstances last year.

>> let's start with you, why now? >> well, clearly the public pressure on fox news had reached a certain point and key point of this also is not only an outside investigation by the same law firm brought in to investigate roger ales, they are going to disclose the investigation tomoow at the bod meeting but also you have to consider the advertiser pressure, they might get high ratings but without advertisers, it's empty calories and can't make money for the network. >> the viewer ship was certainly up, did fox news not have a hope they would be able to ride this out? >> they didn't have any hope. what they were afraid of and seeing was there would be more complaints. yesterday lisa bloom filed another complaint anonymously

and people at fox and 21st century fox felt this was this was going to be a success and never get past publicity given how poisoned the well has been about o'reilly. they saw no way out. >> these are not new allegations. they've been ongoing. there was a very public lawsuit in which there were tapes of o'reilly doing inappropriate things over the phone. that is notny. this new york times story shed more light on a pattern of behavior. bill o'reilly, only settled these lawsuits in order to protect his family. given it's not new, what was happening in the past decade or so between the first high profile allegation and now. why -- what responsibility does fox have to come clean with why they allowed this sort of

behavior to continue? >> one key thing to keep in mind, in the 2004 case with the producer, roger ales in charge of fox news, he was the main guy in charge there who has given a lot of latitude to run the place on his own he really went to bat for bill o'reilly and since roger ales has left, there's been a lot of attention paid on fox news and how they handle sexual harassment cases and you have to keep in mind the business side of this. the fox overall family, 21st century fox and murdochs are trying to buyky news over in enand and their government is looking into they call it like the proper clause or something like that -- >> fit and proper. they look into the business practices of the company and whether they find as proper to allow the deal to go through. that's something really big for the company and clearly they thought this type of scandal

would not be helpful to that sort of deal. >> how much credit does gretchen carlson deserve for this indirectly? >> a lot of credit for starting the ball rolling against roger ales but the key to o'reilly story is wendy walsh, one of the women named in the "new york times" story back in early april. she was not bound by a nondisclosure agreement and talked and gave press conferences and she was the face and voice of these accusations. and what would have been an otherwise one day story for the murdochs and fox news became a long running media circus they could not get past. >> you saw that video on your screen of those protests that were happening outside of fox news headquarters down the street from us here at nbc news headquarters. when you talked to your sources and i know both of you are sourced up within your beats what is going on inside fox news right now and among the women of fox news? >> you're hearing both senses of

some people are scared and some people are scared for jobs especially bill o'reilly's show, they have been working for a long time worried what are they going to do. there's a shifting of the lineup and people are thinking of their jobs and there was a lot of fear said she was going to drop when it came to o'reilly. there was some areas a sense of relief. a lot of people at fox news wanted to keep going with jobs and wanted to report and host their shows, there's a sense of release this is now past and dealt with. at least it wasn't spread out over months and months and they could move on now. there's clearly this past year has been really difficult for a lot of people at fox. this is something rupert murdoch addressed in a memo to his staff a few minutes ago saying he recognized how difficult it was. it's charge with any charge happens in a newsroom and really hard when such big changes, look at the past year, roger ales and some of the top talent, megyn

kelly, all left the network. a lot of changes for staff to go through. >> what are the women of fox news saying internally? >> i think there's relief. they were supposed to clean this problem up last summer. they did not the accusations kept coming and resentment kept building within fox. the idea they are going to make a clean break from this, why didn't they make a clean break last summer? they did not and that built up the resentment within the company. >> let's bring in marketing and advertising consultant peter shankman joining me here in the studio. >> a lot of talk who was behind this and the sons more rupert murdoch himself. so talk to me about their role? >> if you're looking at two people taking over a company,

they want to start with as fresh a slate as possible. this was going to hangover them forever and ever until they put their foot down and did something. there were more complaints coming like a magician when he keeps pulling out rab bits or handkerr chiefs, this killed it, killed the conversatioand they can move on now and say let's see what we can do. >> let's look at the poll. half of americans say they did not want bill o'reilly to keep the show. when you look at the poll of his viewers, more than half of them wanted him to keep the show -- >> but they are the ones watching. >> doesn't matter. we're in a different world than three years ago, world of grabbing women as our president has said and things of that nature. it's the level of acceptance can no longer exist. >> why can't he withstand allegations that he was sort of the end of the campaign and bill o'reilly cannot? >> at this point the president is not -- as far as we know the president is not bound to

advertisers and president does not make money for nike -- >> if the president was still hosting the apprentice or something -- >> at the end of the day you're looking at companies who are losing -- there were companies under trump, grab your wallet campaign, this huge campaign taking away a lot of dollars from businesses. >> ivanka's brand is doing quite well. >> not as well as it has been and it's taken heat. i bought it in the past never buying it again and advertisers are running scared. he lost almost every single advertiser in the past few weeks. biggest earner for fox news they had. >> i think he went from 14 minutes of advertising in one part of the show to a minute -- >> what do you fill the air with? what do you fill that with? >> my pillow? i'm not good at naming commercials. >> donald trump is a big defender of bill o'reilly when he was doing an interview, unprompted he brought up bill

o'reilly because his "new york times" report had just come out, what a good man he was. the president defending a man now ousted from fox news, defended roger ales as well, all of this talk during the campaign that ales was one of the advertisers helping him create a debate strategy against hillary clinton. donald trump got caught on a access hollywood hot mike saying he wanted to grab women by their private parts and do it because he's a star. talk to me a little bit more about donald trump defending o'reilly and what that says? >> clearly donald trump sees certain people like roger ales and bill o'reilly and someone on his level and self-made success story. at the top of his game for decades. the ratings that he would get for his show completely blew everybody out of the water and it was -- it's really an

incredible achievement for the ratings they got. he maybe saw himself sort of at a parallel with bill o'reilly, accused of certain things he did not think were correct accusation. they also share something else, they share a lawyer, markas wits, sending out interesting statements -- >> saying it was liberal media out to get him. >> yes, pegging it to this political smear campaign. also actually repsented donald trump in a few defamation cases and helping him on the case in part when the "new york times" reported on women who alleged sexual harassment or inappropriate contact with president trump. he was helping donald trump in that sense. they share a lot, including a lawyer. >> are we going to see changes at fox news. they sent out a new lineup, what about on air appearance at fox news, they championed a new you could call it look among their on air talent when they started 20, 30 years ago.

will we see anything different from sheer appearances? >> i'll tell you one thing, when they got rid of roger ales last summer, they didn't get rid of the people who roger ales had put into place. and who in effect enabled him. some of those people still work at fox news if they were serious, they might have done something about those people as well. i'm not asking for anybody to lose their job about if you're serious, you might actually examine their behavior as well and plenty of accusations against those executives -- >> any indication they are looking into those people? >> it's been nine months and they've promoted them and put them into place and still remain in place. the answer to that is no. >> can fox news weather -- can they end the storm by justi isi

ushering out bill o'reilly. >> they dont want to keep the story going on and belabor it. what they can do, we've moved forwards and we're implementing sensitive training or something else and hopefully for them they hope something else happens with united airlines or something else that then takes the heat off of them. we have a small attention span but i don't think they had a choice at that point. >> i keep mispronouncing your name. appreciate everybody's time. >> the white house is putting the spin on the results of the special election in georgia despite john ossoff winning the majority of votes, over 48%, sean spicer says it's still a big loss for democrats hoping to avoid a run jofr. . >> they ran to win last night and they lost. >> with the runoff, now set for june, is it the white house or democrats who should be more nervous about the outcome? i'll discuss it about our panel

next. plus, republican congressman jason chaffetz catching much of washington by surprise announcing he won't be seeking re-election. coming up, more on that decision and what he could be planning to do next. liberty mutual stood with us

when a fire destroyed the living room. we were able to replace everything in it. liberty did what? liberty mutual paid to replace all of our property that was damaged. and we didn't have to touch our savings. yeah, our insurance won't do that.

well, there goes my boat. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance for years, centurylink has been promising fast internet to small businesses. but for many businesses, it's out of reach. why promise something you can't deliver? comcast business is different. ♪ ♪ we deliver super-fast internet with speeds of 250 megabits per second

across our entire network, to more companies, in more locations, than centurylink. we do business where you do business. ♪ ♪ you are looking at live pictures awaiting rex tillerson to make remarks during this hour. we'll bring them to you live once he comes out. both sides are declaring victory in the special election in georgia. the president tweeting that republicans won big thanks to his involvement. no one was a winner at the polls

and john ossoff fell just short of the 50% he needed to win the election outright but democrats are saying the fact they came so close in a district that's been so red for decades, is a try ump in and of itself and statement on how unhappy some conservative voters are with president trump. their reaction is not sitting well with the white house which sounded defensive this afternoon. sean spicer saying bluntly democrats have nothing to celebrate. >> the democrats went all in on the race and spent over $8.3 million. they said on the record their goal was to win this race. they lost. and the rea action has somewhat been that they almost won. no, they lost. >> i want to go to chris jansing at the white house. this race isn't over. privately i know what they are going to say publicly, privately is anyone worried john ossoff might pull it out? >> reporter: i think they are feeling pretty confident right now.

saw that indication from the president and that tweet where he said glad to be of help. there's no doubt the president really went all in on this in the sense of he tweeted half a dozen times and did that robocall that was sent out everywhere in that district. and he really went through the talking points that the republicans had against ossoff, that he was not living within the district. they said he was going to raise taxes something that he denied. a whole litany of things. now, sean spicer, really said though the key thing when he talked about the more than $8 million, the amount of money raised on this congressional race extraordinary over 12 million. 8 million of it for that democrat and their feeling is that they now have a strategy, the strategy is hollywood versus georgia, that it's the outside money, majority of money that he had that came from elsewhere, a lot of it as they put it from california liberals so that's

something we're going to hear going forward. however, when sean spicer was asked today whether or not the president would be possibly heading to georgia to campaign, he would not commit to that. >> during the white house briefing he was asked about this confusion about the uss carl vinson, aircraft kirier that the white house and senior military officials had said was going and steaming towards the korean peninsula to send a signal, a message to north korea. turngz out according to photos that that air care cacraft carr much closer to australia, going in the opposite direction. the white house's response today, chris? >> reporter: well, let's be clear here about who said what. the president said clearly we are sending an armada to waters off the korean peninsula and when the defense secretary was asked about it, he said it was a prudent move and then as you pointed out, katy, it turned out

it was going in exactly the opposite direction. when pushed on that today, here's what sean spicer said. >> the president said we have an armada going towards the peninsula, that's a fact. it happened. it is happening rather. we said it was heading there and it was heading there and it is heading there. that remains -- >> allies have? >> if there's an impression, then that's not -- there should have been clarification from people seeking it. >> it was actually heading south not north. it was heading for drills with the royal australian navy. they have said that folks at the white house and sean spicer, all of this should be directed towards the defense department should be directed towards a defense officials. it's clear though -- >> chris jansing, i'm sorry to interrupt you, we have rex tillerson coming out right now talking to reporters. >> today i'd like to address iran's alarming and ongoing

provocations that export terror and violence, destabilizing more than one country at a time. iran is the world's leading spat sponsor of terrorism and responsible for intensifying multiple conflicts and undermining u.s. interests in countries such as syria, yemen, iraq and lebanon, and continues to support attacks against israel. unchecked iran has the potential to travel the same path as north korea and take the world along with it. the united states is keen to avoid a second piece of evidence that's strategic patience is a failed approach. a comprehensive iran policy requires we address all threats posed by iran and it is clear there are many. iran continues t support the brutal assad regime in syria, prolonging a conflict that killed half a million syrians and displaced millions more. iran supports the assad regime

even as it commits atrocities against his own people and including with chemical weapons. iran provides arms, financing and training and funnels foreign fighters into syria. it is also sent members of the iran revolutionary guards to take part in direct combat operations. in iraq, iran provides support to some iraqi militant groups. primarily through the kuds force undermining security in iraq for years. iran maintains a longstanding hostility towards israel, providing weapons and training and funding to hamas and other palestinian terrorist organizations. indeed, and in propaganda, iran fullments discord. the regime reported a missile marked death to israel during a

pi military parade, providing military equipment and training, thus threatening saudi arabia's southern border. interdictions in yemen and coalition forces in the arabian sea revealed a complex iranian network to arm and quit the houthis. iranian naval vessels continue to mrmine freedom of navigation in the persian gulf by harassing u.s. naval vessels operating lawfully. iran has conducted cyber attacks against the united states and our gulf partners. iran has been behind terrorist attacks throughout the rest of the world, including a plot to kill the then saudi ambassador to the united states. whether it be assassination attempts, support of weapons of mass destruction, deploying, e destabilizing militias, iran spends treasure and time

disruptding peace. iran continues to have one of the world's worst human rights records. reaching the agonizing low point of executing juveniles and individuals whose punishment is not proportion nat to their crime. iran ash trarly detains foreigners including u.s. citizens on false charges. several u.s. citizens remain missing or injustly imprisoned in iran. apart from abuses inside iran's own border, it is the threat it poses to the rest of the world. the nuclear ambitions are a grave risk to international peace and security. it is their habit and posture to use whatever resources they have available to uettle people and nations. with the latest test of a medium range ballistic missile, iran's continued development and proliferation of missile

technology in is defiance of u.n. security council resolution 221 and previously stated it will conduct a special flight of the vehicle putting it closer to a operational intercontinental ballistic missile. any discussion of iran is incomplete without mentioning the jcpoa, fails to achieve the objective of a nonnuclear iran and delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state. this deal recommendation the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current eminent threat we face from north korea. the trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on iran. the evidence is clear, iran's provocative actions threaten the united states and region and the world. as i indicated at the beginning, the trump administration is currently conducting a

comprehensive review of our iran policy. once we have finalized our conclusions we'll meet the challenges iran poses with clarity and conviction. thank you. >> secretary -- a few questions -- andrea mitchell. >> iran is complying with the terms of the nuclear deal. if you break out of that deal, won't that send a signal to north korea and other rogue nations that the u.s. can't be trusted to keep its end of the bargain? and iran is already being sanctioned for its terrorism, for its missile events by the u.s. is another option one that many republicans on the hill have suggested, to increase those sanctions, to punish iran for those behaviors? >> well, andrea, it's important in any conversation on jcpos jd this was one of the mistakes in how the agreement was put together, it completely ignored

all of the other serious threats that iran poses and i just went through a few of those with you. that's why our view is that we have to look at iran in a comprehensive way in terms of the threat it poses and all areas of the region and the world. and the jcpoa is one element of that. so we are going to review completely the jcpoa itself. as i said it really does not achieve the objective. it is another example of buying off a power who has nuclear ambitions and we buy them off for a short period of time and someone has to deal with it later. we just don't see that that's a prudent way to be dealing with iran, certainly not in the context of all of the other disruptive activities. >> so mr. secretary, you mentioned tha the jcpoa is another example of a failed

approach. on north korea, is there a serious consideration being given to -- state sponsor of terrorism, a designation removed -- >> we're reviewing all of the status of north korea both in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism as well as all of the other ways in which we can bring pressure to bear on the regime in pyongyang and reengage with us on a different footing than the past talks have been held. yes, we're evaluating all of those options. >> are you worried about the situation? >> i'm sorry, i didn't -- i didn't catch all of your. >> in venezuela, a lot of people on the streets of venezuela protesting the government of maduro, are you worried about the situation? >> we are concerned that the government of maduro is vi

latding its own constitution and not allowing the opposition to have their voices heard nor allowing them to organize in a way that expresses the views of the venezuelan people. yes, we are concerned about that situation. we're watching it closely and working with others particularly through the oas to communicate those concerns to them. >> thank you, everybody, thank you ch. >> rex tillerson speaking about iran, o of the rare appearances as secretary of state has made so far. talking specifically about the iran deal and the review that the president is asking congress to conduct on, specifically when it comes to iran's support of terrorism. we ran through a number of examples just then talking about the houthis and kurds as well as supporting the palestinians in the fight against israel and cyber attacks against the u.s. nbc news tehran bureau chief

joins me by phone now. what is the likely reaction going to be from iranian leaders? >> the sanctions or renegotiating the jcpoa so close to elections on the 19th of may will seriously upset the apple cart and doing a deal with america was never a good idea and bound to back fire. it's also very doubtful that the iran was involved on any type of renegotiation of this deal. none of this bodes well for a second term in office. he's a moderate. he's favored relations with the west and invested almost all of the political tactical and nuclear deal. it's in trouble. he's in trouble. the real question is how will the supreme court leader ret, e bucktops with him.

he already warned of sequences if the u.s. violates terms of the deal. part of the deal were reinstated and sanctions for human rights or ballistic missiles imposed on iran. if deals with boeing in the works or iran's banking system was toppled he'll be undoubtedly furious and see the deal as fallen apart and only reluctantly gave approval to the deal and continued to criticize the lack of benefits andny relationship with america. he may want to pull out of the deal. he would rather america did so but he may get to the point where there are no benefits of having the deal and he should restart the nuclear program. he may also try a different tactic and may find creating a wedge between america and the rest of the p5+1, and germany, who negotiated the deal with america and there are many

moving parts in this and a lot of it is determined on what president trump's next step will be if he impose new sanctions and applies more pressure on iran, that would certainly be very tough talk by secretary of state tillerson and will rusffl a lot of feathers in tehran. >> let's go to chris jansing to go to rex tillerson. this comes on the heels of rex tillerson saying as of now the iran -- iranians are in compliance with the iran deal. i don't need to tell you or our audience but obviously donald trump made ripping up the iran deal and renegotiating it at the very least a campaign priority. every single rally and he believed the iranians were lying and it was not good to allow them to develop a nuclear bomb and doing so regardless of whether this deal was in place. and this white house does decide to try to renegotiate this deal

or if the decide to impos n or try to impose new tougher sanctions, what are the implications? >> reinstatement of sanctions so the implications are tremendous if you talk to people who have supported the iran nuclear deal. this wasn't a deal that just barack obama and his team made. this was a team -- a deal made with the pp5+1, not just the uk and germany and france but russia and china. incredibly complex deal. here was at its most basic. it was if they -- develop nuclear weapons if they stop developing nuclear weapons not for peaceful purposes but nefarious purposes then the crushing sanctions on iran would be lifted. this has been tremendous for them. but you can penalize them. it does allow reinstating if

they violate that nuclear deal, they are not as again you pointed out, secretary of state rex tillerson has said they have not -- to say we're going to put sanctions back on because they are state sponsors of terrorism, because they are supporting all of these terrorist groups that as you mentioned he brought up, that would mean that the united states was in violation. so what does that say to our allies and to the others about our ability to be trusted when we go into a deal? and of course the other dangerous polical implications very real i am plekss that ali brought up. right now what they have is this review that secretary of state mentioned he has the national security council leading this review of where we stand with this. this was something that he promised. i don't know how many times you would have heard him say it's the worst deal ever made and

even more colorful language. but the fact of the matter is the consequences of this would be far reaching. >> i believe it's thousands of times, chris. >> sortry he brought it up -- >> almost every time he spoke at any rally and got big cheers about hiow that was a terrible deal, et cetera, et cetera. a perfect segue to our two next guests, eli lake and ned price, former spokes person and senior director for the national security council under president obama. piggy backing on what chris just said -- what said to allies or enemies north korea being one. trying to reneg on the position within the deal, this is not just a u.s. deal but correct me if i'm wrong, but five nations that came to make this deal with the iranians. >> with the european union as

well. >> what does that say to them if we try to renegotiate it? >> it says the united states cannot be trusted that our political system has a habit of ab ro gating foreign policy agreements which heretofore has not been thecase. there's another real world implication ever the united states leaving the iran deal. if we kr to do that and russians and chinese and germans, that would essentially require us to impose sanctions on them because they would be doing business with the iranian regime that would be off limits to the united states. are we going to sanction the chinese? are we going to sanction the british, the french? i think -- the germans? i think that would be very difficult for this administration to do. >> you heard andrea mitchell, our own state department chief correspondent for the state department, ask the first question of rex tillerson, basically saying already sanctioning iran for sponsoring

terror. what do you see happening if they try to impose tougher sanctions or more sanctions on that state, that nation? >> two points, because it was not a comprehensive agreement, one of the selling points to congress and period after the dealwise agreed to was that nonnuclear sanctions human rights or terrorism would remain and in the final year and a half of the obama administration they weren't really implemented that much although there were a few times after missile launches. the second point what ned just said, a great way to make sure they are agreements of one administration carried under the next one, to do this thing in the constu, to go to the senate and have it ratified as a trty. not the routthat the obama administration took which they enough known would make it less durable in that sense if there was a new administration that had a different view of the iran agreement. all of that said, i don't think that the trump administration is going to reneg on the jcpoa as

it's known at this point. what i do think you're going to see, what we've already seen, there will be greater enforcement of nonnuclear sanctions against iranian entities in a way we hadn't necessarily seen in the last three years of the obama administration. and at least at the time when all of this was being negotiated, we were told the deal would basically accommodate that. >> you heard a ton of sources on this, but he was speaking to a few of intelligence sources, during the transition and talking about how this administration was going to conduct itself on foreign policy, obviously there's been turnover with mike flynn not being in the national security council or as a national security adviser any longer but a source was telling me it felt very much like this administration's position towards iran felt very much like the bush administration's position towards iraq when they first came into power. what is the appetite that this administration has to confront

iran? >> well, i don't think that there's any chance of that kind of massive invasion and regime change in iran in the sense we saw in iraq. the country wouldn't support that. i don't know if the military is even capable of something like that. iran is a much larger country and one thing people have talked out in iran, and bits and spurts from time to time, we have seen uprisings of the iranian people that have protested against their own dictatorship and that's been crushed. we don't have a lot of control over that process and iran is an adversary not an ally. there's not a lot they can do to affect the dynamics inside but there certainly is a viewpoint within the administration that it would be nice to show we had solidarity. when it comes to actual hard decisions on policy, what you're likely to see is an emphasis on nonnuclear sanctions for now and kind of recommitment to middleeastern allies that in many ways were very much against the fact that the iran nuclear deal kind of let iran out of the

box as it were as it was waging this kind of proxy war throughout the region. and there is a sense that iran will be countered and by the way, obama was doing that in yemen and support of the saudis as well. it's not entirely a different policy. what you just saw with rex tillerson's statement there, anyone who had any question whether iran was on notice now the answer is yes, they appear to still be on notice. >> of course he's referring to mike flynn coming out in the press briefing room and saying iran has been put on notice. last question to you, ned, there's a lot of talk about donald trump's foreign policy and as time passes and he is in office, his turn towards being a more traditional hawkish republican, how much is this foreign policy change and deviated from what we were seeing with the obama administration? >> i think what we saw last night when secretary tillerson who today delivered a very different message, a message two thirds of which was difficult to

argue with, iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and engaged in nefarious activity. you won't find many who will disagree with that. last night when he extended or certified that iran was meeting its obligations under the iran deal or jcp o a, that was exhibit a in the foreign policy reversals that we've seen from the trump administration, whether it's the role of nato or chinese currency manipulation or one china policy, the list goes on and on and now iran. this is clearly the difference between governing and campaigning when it komgz to the iran deal, the administration aleast according to secretary tillerson last night sees the value in the iran deal. >> this is just them saving face? >> today was certainly a face saving effort on the part of secretary tillerson. donald trump's political base must be beside itself by the fact that last night secretary tillerson essentially assured

speaker ryan that iran was living up to its obligation. by running through this litany of that behavior, again, nearly all of which i agree with, this was nothing more than a face saving measure on the part of the department of state. >> ned price, appreciate your time. eli lake, appreciate your time as well. thank you, gentlemen. more on that special election in georgia, plus the surprising annocement from jason chaffetz that he won't be seeking re-election. we'll talk about what he could be planning to do right after this break. (announcer vo) when you have type 2 diabetes

there's a moment of truth. and now with victoza® a better moment of proof. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill, which didn't get me to my goal. lowers my a1c better than the leading branded injectable. the one i used to take. (jim) victoza® lowers blood sugar in three ways.

and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. non-insulin victoza® comes in a pen and is taken once a day. (announcer vo) victoza® is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or if you develop any allergic symptoms including itching, rash, or difficulty breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. now's the time for a better moment of proof. ask your doctor about victoza®.

we need to wake up as a party. there are districts that are going moderate. karen would do a good job. probably the best republican we could have chosen. this should be a wake-up call for the republican party in the south. >> lindsey graham talking about karen handel now facing john ossoff, the democrat in a runoff to fill that seat in the georgia six that was vacanted by tom price. let's bring in e.j. die onand matt -- say your last name, mac. >> mccoviak. republican strategist and president of the potomac

strategy group. theyanted john ossoff toet over 50% and win it outright and send a message to donald trump. he did not do that but it was quite close. who ultimately won? was it the democrats because it was close or republicans because they were able to stave him off? >> we're going to find out on june 20th when there's a runoff. the republicans are immensely relieved because it would have been an enormous embarrassment to them. but i think that democrats but more broadly the anti-trump movement won something important. this seat went to tom price, the republican by 23 points. ossoff got 48.1, some democrats were on the ballot got a few hundred votes each. 49% for democrats. there are a lot of republicans in washington looking at their own districts that they thought were safe and they are saying there is a lot of power in this anti-trump movement. and i think you saw senator

johni ernst by critical of donald trump on certain fronts. there are two tests here. republicans are getting more critical of trump on conflicts of interest, transparency issues and his taxes. and then this is a good test to democratic staying power. if they are going to make gains in 2018, they have to keep at it. we'll see if the anti-trump movement can hold together for now to june in that district. >> speaking of that and speaking of republicans and how closely they want to tie themselves to donald trump, the republicans in the race did lash themselves to the president of the united states and looking at bob gray specifically underperformed. they didn't do well. karen handel dntd talk about donald trump much and policy page talked about the wall but didn't mention trump. given that, matt, how much are we seeing republicans try to distance themselves from trump and is that going to continue or are they just unsure of where they should stand right now?

>> well, i think part of this is it depends on the individual candidates and individual districts, thsz a suburban district and had been reliably republican since newt gingrich won it in 1978 but trump did only win by 1.5% in november. the margin basically stayed the same. turnout was down on both sides but down more so on the republican side. the midterms are 18, 19 months away and political environment will be different then than it is now. this is a win for republicans only because it wasn't a huge loss. it did not give additional momentum and enthusiasm to democrats to make more of these races competitive. you have a race coming up in montana and one in south carolina and this runoff again. i think avoiding that kind of major loss is a very thing for capitol hill republicans and for the trump agenda because if they lost the seat last night it would have sent a message to capitol hill republicans they needed to distance themselves in

the administration and they didn't get that message last night. >> e.j., there was a bit of surprising news, jason chaffetz not seeking his opponent raise ad ton of money in utah or potentially if he wants to run for a different office. the governor's seat will be open in a few years. what do you make of jason chaffetz leaving the house? and do you see that as an issue with trump? or do you see it as more of an issue with his political ambitions? >> i had the thought that he doesn't have hillary clinton to investigate anymore. he sort of lost a reason for being. i think you can say that he is, in a certain sense in the first victim of this anti-trump movement. he's taking a lot of grief that he's never taken before. and they said if you'll help raise some money, i will run

against him. one of the things we forget, a lot of incumbents who win easily don't really like the idea of running very, very hard races in which they'll be attacked. even if they're favored to win. so i think he said, this will be a very unpleasant time for me. i would rather get out. >> the chairman facing quite a bit of heat for not doing more to investigate donald trump and the potential conflict of interest that may arise within his administration. that's all the time we have for this. thank you for joining me and keep it here msnbc tonight. as congressman jason chaffetz joins my colleague greta van susteren at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. the trump administration facing new scrutiny oh what is now made the to be the first dreamer. after saying his protective status had expired, the

administration is now reversing itself. the report here first broke that story joins me next. totaled you. nobody's hurt, but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

nosy neighbor with a glad bag, full of trash. what happens next? nothing. only glad has febreze to neutralize odors for 5 days. guaranteed.

even the most perceptive noses won't notice the trash. be happy. it's glad. a lot of questions about the first deportation of a dreamer by the trump administration. 23-year-old juan manuel montes said he was waiting for a ride in the border town of calexico, california, when he was approached by a border patrol officer. he said he was sent back to mexico three hours later. his lawyers say he had permission to live and work in the u.s. under the program.

but status was revoked because he made a trip outside country sometime before his arrest and deportation. his lawyers say he never voluntarily 11th the country. usa reporter broef this story yet. i'm a little confused. the department of homeland security said he didn't have this status. now they are saying he does have this status. does that mean it is a open and shut case? is he going to be allowed back into the united states? >> far from it. this will be a case that will require some clarification at the federal court level. the attorneys have filed suit in california. wee see how it plays out. he was arrest asknd reported ba to mexico. er yesterday the department of homeland security said his status had end in the 2015.

today they said it was active. it was set to expire in 2018. but he violated the terms by leaving the country. his attorneys say, well, yeah, he left the country because you deported him. so that's the back and forth that we're seeing. it will take a while to clear it up. >> let's listen to what the attorney general said. >> the enrollees are not being targeted. i don't know why he was picked up. everybody in the country illegalory is subject to being deported. so people come here and they stay here a few years and somehow they think that they're not subject to being deported. well, they are. >> a bit of a contradiction there. they're not targeting anyone who is a dreamer b at the same time everybody here who is here illegal i is subject to deportation.

they just don't know how this department of homeland security will handle these folks. president trump has talked a lot about how he has a big heart, a soft spot for these folks because it is not their fault that they came to the country. their parents prip earl brought them to the country when they were children. so he says he wants to come up with a solution to that. then we see, we've seen other cases of daca recipients. there's another case in washington state right now where there's a daca recipient who remains in federal custody even though he has daca and now we have manuel montez who has been deported. we're seeing inassistances where they're getting wrapped up in this immigration reform.

>> who will be overseeing this case? the lawsuit? >> judge gonzalo curio. for the viewers who don't remember who that is, that is the judge that president trump blasted for being biased because of his mexican heritage even though he was born in indiana. >> judge curio. that was such a hot moment in the campaign. republican sources in the rnc terrified that that would do donald trump in. it ultimately did not, as we know. we appreciate your reporting on this and we appreciate your trying to sort out what has been a pretty confusing time in terms of immigration of where this administration stands, who is subject to deportation and who is not subject to it, keep following the story of we'll check back with you with all the breaking news that you are able to uncover. appreciate it. that does it for this hour. i am katy tur in for steve

kornacki. >> tonight, elizabeth warren will join rachel maddow tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on the rachel maddow show. you can see this guy right here, chub todd on meet the press daily. if it's wednesday, is it a good day or a bad day for the democrats? tonight, the real lesson from the georgia special election. we have a new battle ground in american politics. the sunbelt suburbs. >> this comes down to grassroots intensity. and it is that momentum that will carry us. >> did the president help or hurt republicans yesterday? the answer is yes. >> the president will make sure that he does everything he can to maintain majorities and further party. and the